9.I. Summarizing Vincent's Case

I did not have time to complete the month-by-month summary of "Vincent's" abuse of his family--and his easy manipulation of DCYF and Family Court. But here is an overall summary:

Rhode Island needs the Attorney General’s Child Abuse Unit

Congratulations to Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin for creating a new Child Abuse Unit that will work with the accredited victims’ advocacy group Day One (“New unit to tackle cases of child abuse,” The Providence Journal, Dec. 6, 2011, page A1). This effort could finally protect children from sex abuse--unless it falls prey to the same pressures that too often sabotage the missions of Family Court, the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), and Hasbro Hospital’s Child Protection Program.

Pressures to impede the unit will be intense, because it is usually family members and friends, not strangers, who perpetrate child abuse. Pedophiles’ motives may not be sex so much as power and control over vulnerable victims. Add to that the enormous profitability of child pornography and the ease of webcam pimping.

But state officials charged with protecting children are so fragmented that they seldom bother to look beyond the boundaries of their individual roles to identify larger patterns of abuse. Each official is insulated from the benefits that a team of equals can bring by intentionally enlarging upon each other’s limited perspective.

In 1997, a Hasbro doctor and counselors at the St. Mary’s Shepherd Program all reported signs that a sister and brother suffered sexual abuse by their father. DCYF “indicated” the father, who sued the agency’s senior attorney for administrative failures. Suddenly under siege, DCYF pressured the Hasbro doctor to change her report.

She complied with a new report that minimized the evidence she once found compelling. By 2000, Family Court General Magistrate John O'Brien gave the children to their father's sole custody.

In 2002 the boy tried to run away. The following year, he had a breakdown. He tearfully testified to Judge Howard Lipsey about a laundry basket of videotapes in their father's bedroom.

Lipsey returned the children to their mother, but apparently never called state police to investigate the videotapes. He declared that he was now prejudiced against the father and could no longer rule on the case.

The next Family Court judge, Michael Forte released the father from paying child support because the children refused to visit him. The mother worked several jobs at minimum salary and raised her children in poverty.

From 1992 to 2006, more than a dozen judges grappled with the case under our failed system of adversarial litigation. In their final hearing, the father stood with photos in his hand and a smirk on his face, saying he wanted to show Judge Forte the stripper’s pole he had installed in his daughter's bedroom. Forte ignored him and ended the hearing.

Like Penn State officials, none of these authorities felt responsible to call in state police to investigate what really happened to these children. (State police exposed the fraudulent credentials of the court’s mediator who worked on this case, and the children’s guardian ad litem was later found to be defrauding the fund that paid him to represent poor litigants. Neither court official was prosecuted.)

Many Family Court custody cases are orchestrated by guardians ad litem--privately paid lawyers with enormous power over families. Judges assume these “guardians” submit objective reports, but many are blatantly biased, depending on which parent pays them and the guardians’ relationships to other professionals profiting from these cases.

Guardians often ask judges to order parents to pay for expensive psychological “evaluations” by one of a handful of clinicians still willing to produce highly questionable reports for Family Court.

Attorneys for alleged abusers often insist that children must stop seeing trusted counselors like those at Day One, arguing that therapy will interfere with clinical evaluations. This calculated strategy keeps children under the thrall of their abusers.

Meanwhile, judges order clinical “evaluations” and forced “reunification” sessions with abusers “in a therapeutic setting” that further traumatize abused children. Rhode Island Blue Cross and Blue Shield told me they do not pay clinicians for court-ordered sessions, since these are not therapeutic. But court-ordered clinicians have learned to couch their reports in therapeutic language and to bill insurers under nondescript codes. Victims of abuse can seldom afford to pay for these sessions, but children regularly pay the cost in night terrors and gastrointestinal disorders.

Based on more than two decades studying Family Court custody cases, I hope that the Attorney General’s Child Abuse Unit will finally bring clarity, ethics, and prosecution to our state’s stymied system of child protection.

Victims need this clarity and continuity of a single, salaried team trained to recognize family dynamics that accompany child sexual abuse. The team must thoroughly understand and care about a family’s history and be available to that family in the future to effectively provide both legal and therapeutic advocacy.

Team members should meet often to build mutual trust. They must disclose and evaluate any attempts by others, especially lawyers, to contact them, and they must preserve the confidentiality of agency whistleblowers and potential victims who might suffer reprisals for coming forward. Team members must recuse themselves from any case where they have conflicts of interest.

To this end, team members should regularly disclose, under penalty of perjury, all outside contacts and verify that they have received no payment or benefits other than salary for working on this case.

Finally, the Attorney General’s Office must move quickly to bring evidence of child sex abuse to the Grand Jury where it belongs, to alert Family Court and DCYF, and to assure prompt, skillful prosecution of abusers in Superior Court.


Anne Grant (parentingproject@cox.net) investigates legal abuse in Family Court custody cases. Her writing appears in blogs like http://LittleHostages.blogspot.com and in Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues, ed. By Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D., and Barry Goldstein, J.D (Civic Research Institute, 2010).

9.H. “Vincent” wins sole custody, 2000

This case study begins at 9.A. below. (Click on August, then 9.A. in the Blog Archives at right.) My comments appear in italicized brackets.

October 2000 Master O’Brien gave Vincent sole custody and permission to go to Illinois and bring back the children.

November 2000 The 10-year-old boy emailed a greeting card (above) to his mother with this message:

mom, keep remembering me. I’ll always be in your heart no matter what. I keep on knitting my scarf. I’ll send it to you. I miss Matt and Andrea so much. I cry every night, wishing and wishing and wishing that I was there, with you. I hope your O.K. I love you with all my heart. Tell everybody that I miss them. I miss playing with Matt soo much! Love YA!!

He also sent a handwritten message:

Dear Mom,

I miss you very much! You’re the best ever! I will do my best on the clarinet. Tell everybody at home that I miss them so much!

I keep on sending you E-cards, but I guess they don’t get through. Anyway, make sure to send pictures of everybody, even kitty and dufus.

Keep on trying to get us back, Day and night. I’ll keep on writing to you. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxo
Love x infinite x infinitity,
[Son's signature]

February 2002 Judge Pamela Mactaz ordered that both children could speak with their mother on the phone without being monitored by their father.

September 2002 Their mother, who had moved back to Rhode Island, filed a motion to regain custody and placement of the children.

October 2002 The son ran away from his father’s home.

[Later, the son, then 13, wrote about their traumatic removal from his mother and his “forever home” in Illinois. I will add more details later from the voluminous court history, which was paid for by Rhode Island tax payers and the victims of the court.]

April 2003 Justice Howard Lipsey described “the scars that each party and each child has suffered from this unending litigation.” He blamed both parents for seeming “to thrive on exposing their children to the pain and suffering of litigation.” But he did not appear to blame the court system.

Lipsey affirmed an “unequivocal” fact:

. . . both children unambiguously and unequivocally desire to be with their mother and not their father. That has always been the position of the children and it has only been through the intervention of the Court that this has not been possible. (Emphasis added.)

He concluded:

. . . joint custody will continue the never-ending litigation that . . . would be detrimental to the well being and best interests of these children.

Justice Lipsey granted the mother sole custody and placement of the children.

May 2003 The son, 14, had a breakdown and threatened to harm himself at school. Bradley Hospital enrolled him in its Crisis Intervention program and notified DCYF.

[While in an abusive parent’s care, trophy children need to be rigorously obedient. They often excel at school, where they find affirmation and relief away from the oppressive atmosphere at home. But once they return to a supportive parent, they often suffer breakdowns. The grades of good students may plummet. Pushed to the limit of their endurance under the thumb of an abusive parent, they can finally allow themselves to feel emotions that they once kept under tight control. This is not unlike the breakdowns that soldiers with PTSD suffer after coming home from the rigors of war.]

June 2003 Vincent filed numerous motions blaming the mother for interfering with his court-ordered visitation and phone calls with the children. He blamed the mother for “psychologically abusing” the children. He even attached an email from his son, who blamed “Vincent” for lying to manipulate the court and to harm their mother.

December 2003 Justice Lipsey summarized Vincent’s numerous motions and also his ex-wife’s motion for child support, but he refused to rule on any of them. He declared that he must recuse himself from hearing the case altogether, for he had become "biased:"

After having had an opportunity over a lengthy period of time of trial, to observe the parties in this case and to observe what their reaction was to the children and what their motivations appeared to me to be with respect to the children, it is clear to me that I could not impartially hear this case because I feel on the basis of the testimony I have heard before, on the basis of my observations of both parties, on the basis of my observations and talks with the children, on the basis of the multitude of motions that have been filed within a very short time after my decision in this case, that I could not be without bias towards the defendant [Father] in this case.

I feel he is utilizing this court system for his own purposes. I feel that he is abusing the court system for his own purposes. I feel that he has no real interest for the best interest of the children. I feel further that he is taking advantage of a system, taking advantage of his children, taking advantage of his oldest son who is in the courtroom here. I think he is taking advantage of his former wife. I think he is devious. I think he has no desire to really look to the best interest of a child and children, and if anyone is not allowing them to reestablish a relationship with him and with their sibling, it is he who is doing it. . . . on the basis of my review of all the facts in this case, . . . for me to be able to impartially judge the motions that have been filed before this court would be a physical and a metaphysical impossibility.

[After examining the evidence, Justice Lipsey saw exactly what was happening. But he claimed that the Judicial Code precluded him from ruling on the case. He did not end the cycle of abuse by Vincent or by the Court. His failure to award child support condemned these children to grow up poor. Their mother patched together minimum-wage jobs day and night, sought charity, and neglected her own medical needs, while Vincent refused to pay court-ordered child support. This was particularly galling to his children, for they knew he was lying about his income. They had accompanied him when he picked up cash payments from numerous tenants.]

The next judge, Michael Forte, has a reputation for misogyny. He cut Vincent’s debt to the children’s mother in half, and he brought in David Tassoni to “mediate” child support.

NEXT: 9. I. How David Tassoni and Judge Forte punished the children and favored “Vincent.”

9.G. The Supreme Court weighs in, 1999

This case study begins at 9.A. below. (Click on August, then 9.A. in the Blog Archives at right.) My comments appear in italicized brackets.

August 1998 Based on Dr. Jenny’s revised report, DCYF overturned the indication against “Vincent,” and accused the mother of neglect. But they felt confident enough to let her continue caring for the children under supervision of the child protection agency in Illinois. The neglect charge offered her a legal means to get a public defender, Brian LeClair, in Rhode Island who could respond to Vincent’s frequent motions without requiring the mother to keep returning to Rhode Island.

November 1998 Once again, “Vincent” secured a letter from U.S. Sen. Jack Reed—this time to Chief Judge Jeremiah. Reed asserted that the mother had Muchausen’s--even though DCYF’s psychologist Dr. Ira Gross had rejected that diagnosis and said she was suffering from PTSD due to her “constant torment and abuse by her former husband” (Kathryn Hammann, Revised Summary of Facts, 8/24/98: 3.)

When Jeremiah received Senator Reed’s letter, he ordered yet another review of the case. Vincent again threatened to sue DCYF’s chief legal counsel Kevin Aucoin for failing to schedule an administrative hearing on his latest appeal.

September 1999 Vincent’s physician, Dr. Perry Mandanis, MD, reported to the court that his patient had been “thoroughly compliant with his treatment” and “that he was successful in coparenting with his first wife and raised their son without conflict”—an assertion that is contrary to the first wife’s 1991 motion for sole custody (Perry Mandanis, MD, Progress Notes, 9/9/99: 1).

[This is why reports by privately paid experts need to be evaluated by an independent multidisciplinary team, rather than taking the court’s time on potentially biased reports.]

September 1999 A Catholic Charities case worker reported that her visits to the family’s home in Illinois “go very well.” She wrote: "Both children are very well adjusted children. I have observed a very strong bond between them and [mother] on a number of occasions. . . . Academically,they are overachievers and genuinely good kids. (Catholic Charities Report, 9/19/99: 1-2). Both children said they felt “uncomfortable” talking to their father on the phone. The 10-year-old son said he was “scared that his father was taping the call, especially when he forced [son] to say he loved him. [Son] said he felt he would use that against his mother in court or something. He said that it wasn’t that he doesn’t love his father, because he does, but at that time he wasn’t feeling love for him and didn’t want to say it” (Catholic Charities Report, 9/19/99: 2-3).

The case worker found the Illinois home “safe, nurturing and appropriate” for the children, but also described a disastrous visit when the mother verbally attacked a therapist who allowed Vincent to have a four-hour unsupervised visit.

Master John O’Brien approved a motion from DCYF lawyer Martha Diamond to bring both children into foster care in Rhode Island. The mother resisted, saying she had no money for plane fare and not enough time to drive to Rhode Island for the next hearing.

October 1999 DCYF chief legal counsel Kevin Aucoin secured an order from Master O’Brien issuing an arrest warrant for the mother and fining her $100 a day until she returned the children to Rhode Island.

O’Brien signed a confusing warrant to arrest a “child,” but it gave the mother’s name with the father’s address--perhaps so Vincent could call officers if the mother brought the children there and have her taken to prison.

Knowing she would be arrested if she came to Rhode Island, the mother refused to bring the children. O'Brien issued an order for the children, ages 9 and 10, to be seized in Illinois for extradition to Rhode Island. The mother’s public defender, Brian LeClair, secured a stay from the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which found Master O’Brien’s order improper.

NEXT: 9.H. "Vincent" wins sole custody, 2000

9.B. Vincent's first two Family Court cases begin (1982 - 1993)

This case study begins at 9.A., below.


1982 - 1991 (Two wives, two families)

In 1982, Vincent’s first wife, a college counselor, called campus security guards for protection. She reported her husband’s threats to kill her, to harm her colleagues, and to take their 2-year-old son. Evidence of his documented assaults never entered their “no-fault” divorce hearing. A Family Court judge ordered joint custody and shared placement of their child.

[Joint custody and shared placement of trophy children spares the abusive parent from having to pay child support while throwing children’s lives into constant emotional chaos as they struggle to move back and forth between two parenting styles that may be radically opposed. In many domestic violence cases, for example, one parent may be generally nurturing, while the other is highly punitive.]

Vincent’s second wife gave birth to their son in 1989 and their daughter in 1990.

In 1991 Vincent’s first wife sought sole custody citing problems with joint custody.

That same year, his second wife called Cranston police saying Vincent had kicked her in the groin.

1992 – 1993 (When his younger children are ages 2 to 4)

At the beginning, Chief Judge Jeremiah recognized Vincent’s pattern of abuse and tried to intervene. Like many judges, he did not see that domestic abuse of a mother is a strong indication that children are also in danger. He was guided by Pettinato’s “friendly parent” standard that forces children to maintain relationships with both parents, even if one has been cruel and abusive.

December 1992 Vincent’s second wife filed for divorce, and Vincent moved out of their home.

January 1993 His two younger children began court-ordered visits, spending three days and two nights each week with their father, his male roommate, and his older son, 13, whose visits were arranged to coincide with the younger children’s.

February 1993 The two-year-old daughter began having trouble sleeping. She suffered from bed-wetting, night terrors, and stomach aches. A doctor performed a sexual abuse exam and reported concerns to DCYF.

February 1993 General Magistrate John O’Brien ordered DCYF to conduct a domestic relations home study of Vincent's second family.

NEXT: 9.C. DCYF enters

9.A. How "Vincent" drove judges crazy

[This case study will extend through several posts. My comments appear in italicized brackets.]

In the early 1990s, I watched Chief Judge Jeremiah make a strong effort to respond to some domestic violence cases, especially when people contacted him directly about the dangers they faced. He sometimes took over judging those cases himself.

Sometimes he favored abusers, like the police officer who held custody of his daughter for a dozen years while he kept getting his ex-wife arrested on false charges.

Often Chief Jeremiah brought in his close circle of lawyers and staff to work on cases. [I thought some of them abused their power, as in the Case Study, at 3, below.]

People who received the Chief’s personal help were grateful, while the Family Court system as a whole continued putting vulnerable children at risk-- along with the parents trying to protect them, who were traumatized by the Court as much as by their abusers.

Pettinato’s “friendly parent” standard (see post 8, below) required judges to force children into damaging relationships with aggressively manipulative personalities—like one I will call “Vincent,” who drove judges crazy.

Vincent’s relatives said he had suffered extreme child abuse, but he would not talk about it. As an adult, he refused to take orders from anyone. He married three times and insisted on controlling his wives and children.

Vincent’s bullying behavior distressed professionals outside and within Family Court, including a series of judges. He tried to control his second family through the court for 14 years (1992-2006). He manipulated the court process at enormous cost to his children, to his former wife, and to taxpayers who funded those fourteen years in operating costs, overhead and salaries of judges, sheriffs, clerks, stenographers, DCYF staff, and many others on public payrolls.

Vincent drove a series of judges to distraction—especially Jeremiah, O’Brien, Lipsey, and Forte.

Lipsey finally figured out what was going on and even named it. But instead of making a finding, he did something extraordinary and recused himself. He explained that Rhode Island's Code of Judicial Conduct precluded him from ruling on the case because, after studying all the evidence, he had become biased against Vincent!

The case went next to Forte, its twelfth judge, who revealed intense bias against Vincent’s wife, but never showed any qualms of conscience about Canon 3E of the Judicial Code.

Most judges preferred to blame both sides without recognizing (as Lipsey did) that one side was very clearly at fault.

NEXT: 9.B. A chronology of Vincent’s case